Stanford Invite

[dl]

Sections (at least for distance races) are now up:

http://www.sml1.com/recordtiming/stanfo ... ctions.htm

Interesting 1500: Centrowitz, Dobson, Solinsky, et. al.

Should be beautiful weather (low 70s during the day, cool at night).

[EPelle]

Same cast of characters in the same play. Good entertainment and excellent time trials for collegians. However, it would be grand if this particular early-season meet could up the ante a bit and produce quite a few more superb times in the 5.000m, for instance, rather than a bunch of fast ones.

[26mi235]

I think that the second Stanford meet typically has the faster times.

[EPelle]

I think that the second Stanford meet typically has the faster times.

It does. It is the open invite. This one will have the obligatory 13.30s from the top NCAA athletes. Excellent time-trial marks, but would like this particular meet to offer a bit more. Looking forward to Babcock returning to the track she set her lifetime 1.500m PB on last year.

[gh]

Gee, sorry those putz runners don't meet your lofty standards. Let's see, in last year's meet, men's 5K--

Section 1: PRs for 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20, 23, 26.

Section 2: 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 16, 19.

Section 3: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6.

Section 4: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14.

Section 5: 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 16, 17, 21, 22.

Men's 10K--
Race 1 PRs: 1 (an NR), 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.

Race 2: 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16... and so on and so on.

Looks to me like a meet where most people run better than they ever have before. Who can ask anything more of an athlete?

[EPelle]

Good research. Missed my point, however.

I would like more 13.20-13.30 times. I'm a fan, not one running. Whatever they achieve is between their trainers and themselves, and their degree of satisfaction is absent anything I get out of it. My standards aren't the least bit lofty. It would be nice to see the Stanford Invitational pull more guys through a bit faster -- one notch up (from the 13.30-13.45 group to the 13.20-13.30 one). Not entirely too much to ask as a fan. You see the same names year in and out and can nearly safely guess the winning times.

[gh]

Given that the meet is overwhelmingly collegiate, you see the same names for a short span only, because they run out of eligibility. But of course you see them again and again while they can; they're there to get Q's on a track renowned for giving them up. And if the times are predictable it's because one would expect a group of leading collegians to produce at about the same level year in and year out.

[EPelle]

Again, spot on for the most part. Part of my stated point is that this is a time-trial track. Given that Stanford is the very first opportunity to run the heck out of one's shoes following indoors, times will be - and typically are - in the 13.30s. I'd simply like the collegians to step up a notch and be prepared for the 13.20s. It will bode well for 13-teens at NCAA's rather than 13.20-13.30.

[BCBaroo]

Again, spot on for the most part. Part of my stated point is that this is a time-trial track. Given that Stanford is the very first opportunity to run the heck out of one's shoes following indoors, times will be - and typically are - in the 13.30s. I'd simply like the collegians to step up a notch and be prepared for the 13.20s. It will bode well for 13-teens at NCAA's rather than 13.20-13.30.

Well, time will tell. Literally and figuratively.

[gh]

you make it sound as if collegians can run 13:20s just by trying a little harder. Note that only two races in NCAA Championships history (’79 & '05) had 13:20 times. And only 4 others ('77, '78, '81, '98) went in the 13:30s.

Obvioiusly that's a seriously flawed comparison, because time-trialing at Stanford isn't the same as an NCAA that may have had heats. But it goes to the fact that 13:20 is just far above the skill level of most collegians who have ever run.

[EPelle]

you make it sound as if collegians can run 13:20s just by trying a little harder. Note that only two races in NCAA Championships history (’79 & '05) had 13:20 times. And only 4 others ('77, '78, '81, '98) went in the 13:30s.

No, individually, they can't. However, they can, collectively, push each other past that 8.40 first 3.200m point, and sneak under 13.25. I'd like to see what leader 3.200m splits have been recorded in the past 10 editions.

Obvioiusly that's a seriously flawed comparison, because time-trialing at Stanford isn't the same as an NCAA that may have had heats. But it goes to the fact that 13:20 is just far above the skill level of most collegians who have ever run.

Lost in this discussion is this: Raise the bar a bit. It's contagious. Run 13.20-13.25 at Stanford against three other guys whom you'll meet again in two months, and one has the potential of being pushed to 13.17-13.20 if they hit their splits right.

[gh]

Add a few ~ equations in there and you'll start sounding just like Eldrick, the king of pie-in-the-sky projections.

[EPelle]

I'd rather not. However, germane to this discussion, I, as a fan, would like to see a few faster cluster times at the front end at Stanford. Those times likely won't occur, but that doesn't take away from the achievements the athletes make.

[bad hammy]

As a fan I like to sit in the stands and watch other folks do their best at the running and jumping and throwing thing. The Stanford Invite will satisfy this fan just fine.

[dl]

Perhaps running a super-fast 5K at the end of March isn't the best way to be at your best in June...